All I want to know is whether or not there will be instancing so I know whether or not to ignore it.
Also, the amount of hand holding. Smed claims little to none but I don't buy it. THAT I'll have to wait until beta to find out.
Get rdy to hate it. I can assure you the game will have instancing in some form. Probably housing if i had to guess, and raids. Probably dungeons as well.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Standard comment about how it'd better have this, and it'd better have that, followed by a "I'll have to see more before I decide," and perhaps a sprinkling of MMO knowledge in a sorry attempt to make everyone think I'm intelligent, etc.
Originally posted by Rogosh The classes, I really want to see how combat and classes will be implemented. Hopefully we will see a game that brings back the need for cc and pullling(monks, sks and bards oh my), and a game that is more than just instance dungeons and the holy trinity.
I too am curious what classes we'll have to choice from and how they work.. I am hoping they will be very much alike the original.. I want to see hybrid classes, and support ones as well.. I want to see the art of CC and pulling.. And I'm hoping for multiples forms of kiting.. as well as the traditional hack and slash with heals.. However, if we end up seeing homogenized classes like we see in WoW, Rift and GW2.. I'll pass and not look back.. I want a buffet of classes and roles to choice from.. I wonder if the world will be like the old one.. I hope so, I miss trains along with many other surprises..
Originally posted by Sintrix Combat will make or break it for me. Can't do any more Tab+ DDR numpad MMOs.
I 'm with you there. Tab Target is so yesteryear it isn't even funny.
If combat is more twitch, most everyone will just leave or not try it.. I see nothing wrong with the old traditional targeting.. No need to invent the wheel..
Originally posted by Ozmodan Not sure how you fit classes into a sandbox, but I guess we will have to wait and see. If they do have a rigid class structure, then it cannot be a sandbox in a shape or form.
You apparently are one of those people who think what you think is a sandbox is what a sandbox is. Sandbox design is merely defined as the ability to go anywhere in the world from the first time you log in. Period. There are no mentions of class structure, building or destroying parts of the world, skill based systems, or any other number of things people on this site insist has to be in a sandbox for it to be called a sandbox.
MMO players have turned into toddlers. They think "I can make things in a sandbox, so I should be able to in a sandbox game". That's like saying "I can stay underwater for long periods of time in a sub, so I should be able to do the same with a sub sandwich".
Beg to differ, a sandbox almost requires a skill based system. Rigid class structures immediately remove any chance of the product being a sandbox because you cannot develop your avatar freely, you have to follow their predesigned class. Who cares about how the world is designed when you cannot choose how your avatar is developed.
If they have rigid class structures in EQNext then it most certainly is NOT a sandbox despite whatever other design features they include. Everyone knows that Smedley loves rigid class structures, that is why he destroyed SWG with his NGE design. So there is a good chance that Smedley is blowing smoke in everyone's eyes when he describes his game as a sandbox. Most developers really avoid a sandbox design because it is difficult to balance a skill based system, especially in pvp.
Anyone trying to say that rigid class structures do not negate a sandbox design, do not understand what a sandbox is.
I think your rigidity will cause you disappointment, if you are even interested in EQN. In every single discussion I've seen here, all the participants seem to have their own ideals of what a sandbox is. While that in itself is fine (because, really, I don't care what is floating around in your head) postulating about what is and what is not reeks of hubris.
Well you can postulate all you want, but the FACT is that every sandbox ever made is skill based and does not have classes in the classic sense, hence my hesitation to even consider a game with a rigid class structure as a sandbox.
We don't know the details yet, so Smedley might surprise us and come up with something that fits a sandbox definition. Take SWG for an example, it had classes, but your class was determined by the skills you chose. If you got tired of those skills you could detrain some and train others and actually change your class, that is what a sandbox is all about freedom to choose. What NGE did was remove that choice, you had to pick a class and were locked into that choice.
I hope EQN turns out to be what Horizons was trying to be, but without tab target system. Horizons came close to a good formula of theme park/sandbox mix. It was just let down by poor engine and dodgy choices. Imagine if they had playable dragon race too in EQN? Proper dragon that grew you grow up from a hatchling to a dragon the flies the skies in a seamless world with the light forge engine.
The resources and crafting system in Horizons what very good a mix of that and how SWG pre NGE did resources and crafting and it would be a match made in heaven.
Originally posted by Sintrix Combat will make or break it for me. Can't do any more Tab+ DDR numpad MMOs.
I 'm with you there. Tab Target is so yesteryear it isn't even funny.
If combat is more twitch, most everyone will just leave or not try it.. I see nothing wrong with the old traditional targeting.. No need to invent the wheel..
Seconded. What I like in combat is strategy and tactics, not a mad race to see how quickly I can click my mouse and mash my keyboard.
Every time I see people reference "action based combat" as an evolutionary step, I just shake my head. It actually dumbs down the gameplay for more cerebral players.
You know that EQNext is going to be taking some of the good elements from other games and incorporating them with their new concepts. I hope they don't make the same mistake about combat that a lot of players have made.
Originally posted by Ozmodan Not sure how you fit classes into a sandbox, but I guess we will have to wait and see. If they do have a rigid class structure, then it cannot be a sandbox in a shape or form.
You apparently are one of those people who think what you think is a sandbox is what a sandbox is. Sandbox design is merely defined as the ability to go anywhere in the world from the first time you log in. Period. There are no mentions of class structure, building or destroying parts of the world, skill based systems, or any other number of things people on this site insist has to be in a sandbox for it to be called a sandbox.
MMO players have turned into toddlers. They think "I can make things in a sandbox, so I should be able to in a sandbox game". That's like saying "I can stay underwater for long periods of time in a sub, so I should be able to do the same with a sub sandwich".
Beg to differ, a sandbox almost requires a skill based system. Rigid class structures immediately remove any chance of the product being a sandbox because you cannot develop your avatar freely, you have to follow their predesigned class. Who cares about how the world is designed when you cannot choose how your avatar is developed.
If they have rigid class structures in EQNext then it most certainly is NOT a sandbox despite whatever other design features they include. Everyone knows that Smedley loves rigid class structures, that is why he destroyed SWG with his NGE design. So there is a good chance that Smedley is blowing smoke in everyone's eyes when he describes his game as a sandbox. Most developers really avoid a sandbox design because it is difficult to balance a skill based system, especially in pvp.
Anyone trying to say that rigid class structures do not negate a sandbox design, do not understand what a sandbox is.
I think your rigidity will cause you disappointment, if you are even interested in EQN. In every single discussion I've seen here, all the participants seem to have their own ideals of what a sandbox is. While that in itself is fine (because, really, I don't care what is floating around in your head) postulating about what is and what is not reeks of hubris.
Well you can postulate all you want, but the FACT is that every sandbox ever made is skill based and does not have classes in the classic sense, hence my hesitation to even consider a game with a rigid class structure as a sandbox.
We don't know the details yet, so Smedley might surprise us and come up with something that fits a sandbox definition. Take SWG for an example, it had classes, but your class was determined by the skills you chose. If you got tired of those skills you could detrain some and train others and actually change your class, that is what a sandbox is all about freedom to choose. What NGE did was remove that choice, you had to pick a class and were locked into that choice.
The original Everquest had a lot of sandbox elements, especially when compared to recent Themepark releases. The players, for instance determined where the trading zone would be on each server. Star Wars Galaxies had more sandbox elements and classes. Shadowbane, an early sandbox game had classes. Horizons (Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted) had classes, though the player could choose to multi-class, and had non-instanced housing. The box that you're stuck in, and I think a lot of developers made the same mistake is that Ultima Online was largely a sandbox game, and it had a classless system, so the two are co-dependent. A skill, or multi-choice player development system is a sandbox element, but it doesn't mean that your game as whole is sandbox game. The Secret World is not a sandbox game, despite its player development. Likewise, using classes doesn't preclude your game from being largely a sandbox.
Can you drive the economy? Can you make player quests for other players and for yourself? Can you build and destroy structures? Can you invent recipes and craft new and unique items? Can you create your own structure to your player organizations? Can you create your own faction and set conditions for other players to advance or alienate it? If the answers to all those questions is yes, the game is a sandbox, regardless of how the character development and progression is set up.
All that being said, I hope that they do allow some player choice in their character development. The EQ model of "choose a class, level it up, and get the best gear you can" is tired to me. I want to make a warrior, but I want to make him an avoidance tank, rather than a hit-mitigation tank, or a wizard who focuses on buffs and fire, over one who focuses on de-buffing and ice damage.
I get the feeling this game is going to suck and here's why: We know wayyyy too little about it considering it launches in just a couple of weeks.....I get the feeling it either gets pushed back a few months or is going to be a disaster..... If this game is going to be major scale at all it has simply come along too quickly.
Themepark combat is not more "cerebral" than action based combat. Any knowledge of skills/spells etc that need to be understood will be learnt by anyone over say 100 IQ if they care enough to become good at the game. They are different and they will appeal to different types of players.
The simple fact is that traditional themepark combat was introduced as a copy of what was being done on RPG board games prior to video games. I am no programmer but I imagine that it is also simpler to program and was perhaps the only option on the systems of 20 years ago. Now that technology has caught up and developers can produce better and better action systems it is natural those systems are becoming more common. It has nothing to do with dumbing things down. People like having more action and involvement.
"Creating the World" Exploration (with risk) is my favorite part of MMO's. I want to gawk at the EQN World and see it, explore it, and OCD-ly look at every nook and cranny.
I am all about this! Exploring was what I loved so much about Vanguard. Every time I hear "biggest sandbox ever", I cant wait to see what that looks like. Vanguard was HUGE and there was definitely risk involved with exploring (save for the most remote places not populated), so bigger than that world would be amazing!!!!
_________________________________ Vic - "Androzzi here" John - "Vic, your case just busted wide open." Vic - "So close it for me!" John - "Looks like your going to have to close it yourself, SHITTY!!!!"
Themepark combat is not more "cerebral" than action based combat. Any knowledge of skills/spells etc that need to be understood will be learnt by anyone over say 100 IQ if they care enough to become good at the game. They are different and they will appeal to different types of players.
The simple fact is that traditional themepark combat was introduced as a copy of what was being done on RPG board games prior to video games. I am no programmer but I imagine that it is also simpler to program and was perhaps the only option on the systems of 20 years ago. Now that technology has caught up and developers can produce better and better action systems it is natural those systems are becoming more common. It has nothing to do with dumbing things down. People like having more action and involvement.
Lot's of wrong here. "Themepark combat" - That's a new term you just made up, but there's no such thing, as far as I am aware as "sandbox combat". "action based" (and let's be honest here, that's just click targeting with a dodge mechanic) and tab based combat. A sandbox game can have either, but neither lends itself to the term "sandbox combat".
There have been fighting games (action based) , since long before the internet had a wide base of player usage and gaming development, ever hear of a game called "Street Fighter". It has nothing to do with programming. Now that there are fewer internet latency issues than there were 20 years ago, dodging mechanics can be used. That doesn't mean, however, that it's better. That's like saying God of War is superior to Civilization, because it has action based combat. Because you like it, it doesn't make you stupid, but the combat takes less higher level thinking, it's a necessity.
Originally posted by Theocritus I get the feeling this game is going to suck and here's why: We know wayyyy too little about it considering it launches in just a couple of weeks.....I get the feeling it either gets pushed back a few months or is going to be a disaster..... If this game is going to be major scale at all it has simply come along too quickly.
If you followed the game at all you would know why we have no info, and you would know that they could have shown the game already, but wanted to wait for SOE Live.
"Creating the World" Exploration (with risk) is my favorite part of MMO's. I want to gawk at the EQN World and see it, explore it, and OCD-ly look at every nook and cranny.
I am all about this! Exploring was what I loved so much about Vanguard. Every time I hear "biggest sandbox ever", I cant wait to see what that looks like. Vanguard was HUGE and there was definitely risk involved with exploring (save for the most remote places not populated), so bigger than that world would be amazing!!!!
Ever since I read about huge swaths of the Ultima Online servers being crowded with abandoned player made castles I've always like the idea of "castle degradation", which going back to my old D&D roots is what a lot of the dungeons were. Say, a player or organization makes a castle, but stops maintaining it. Now, instead of it just disapearing or worse, remaining barren in pristine condition indefinitely, imagine it slowly falling into disrepair and a NPC creatures (beasts or a gang of bandits, Undead legions, etc) moving in. Now the first players, even though they have moved on, have made content for the players that follow in their footsteps.
Getting back to your comment, how cool would it be if that could happen anywhere in a vast gaming world, so that even if you come back to a same spot you played in 2 years ago, it could be totally different? Now a little player guided quest-hub of a village has become the loosely fortified base of an orc tribe, including a boss that drops nice loot.
Originally posted by Theocritus I get the feeling this game is going to suck and here's why: We know wayyyy too little about it considering it launches in just a couple of weeks.....I get the feeling it either gets pushed back a few months or is going to be a disaster..... If this game is going to be major scale at all it has simply come along too quickly.
If you followed the game at all you would know why we have no info, and you would know that they could have shown the game already, but wanted to wait for SOE Live.
It doesn't launch in a couple of weeks. It's unveiled to the public in a couple of weeks. Going by the last thing I heard there is supposed to be a "playable version in people's hands" by end of 2013.
So, Sandbox? a real one this time? A world with hundreds of zones is NOT a sandbox. So this gona be a 1 Zone world? Even going in houses ? or Dungeons ?
Originally posted by Sintrix Combat will make or break it for me. Can't do any more Tab+ DDR numpad MMOs.
I 'm with you there. Tab Target is so yesteryear it isn't even funny.
If combat is more twitch, most everyone will just leave or not try it.. I see nothing wrong with the old traditional targeting.. No need to invent the wheel..
Seconded. What I like in combat is strategy and tactics, not a mad race to see how quickly I can click my mouse and mash my keyboard.
Every time I see people reference "action based combat" as an evolutionary step, I just shake my head. It actually dumbs down the gameplay for more cerebral players.
You know that EQNext is going to be taking some of the good elements from other games and incorporating them with their new concepts. I hope they don't make the same mistake about combat that a lot of players have made.
Thirded...I nigh despise action combat. I want to play an MMO and make strategic and tactical decisions...not mash buttons like I'm playing an arcade game.
Originally posted by Theocritus I get the feeling this game is going to suck and here's why: We know wayyyy too little about it considering it launches in just a couple of weeks.....I get the feeling it either gets pushed back a few months or is going to be a disaster..... If this game is going to be major scale at all it has simply come along too quickly.
The game doesn't launch in a couple of weeks. Sony will release information about the game in a couple of weeks.
I guess it depends on your definition of launch. But yes the curtains come down and we get to see inside the black box in a couple of weeks. We may even get some information about beta(s), planned release dates and pre-orders.
It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that some of those dates may be in early August. I say again possible but extremely unlikely. So stand by for the information, but do not have your credit card in your hand just yet.
Originally posted by Sintrix Combat will make or break it for me. Can't do any more Tab+ DDR numpad MMOs.
I 'm with you there. Tab Target is so yesteryear it isn't even funny.
If combat is more twitch, most everyone will just leave or not try it.. I see nothing wrong with the old traditional targeting.. No need to invent the wheel..
Every time I see people reference "action based combat" as an evolutionary step, I just shake my head. It actually dumbs down the gameplay for more cerebral players.
I hope they don't make the same mistake about combat that a lot of players have made.
I always find the argument that target-lock systems are "so yesteryear" completely specious. In fact it is the twitchy, actiony combat systems that are by far the oldest. Arcade games, to console games, to a slow creep into PC MMO's. They are simply a gimick to bring convert long term console players into MMO players by giving them something familiar to hang onto. Not innovation simply a marketing ploy to increase sales.
Comments
Yes, I still miss Chambert's Moon, my all time favorite server/game type/map in infantry online.
Now, what id like to see in EQN is a berserker class that is closer to EQ1's than EQ2's excuse for a berserker.
Get rdy to hate it. I can assure you the game will have instancing in some form. Probably housing if i had to guess, and raids. Probably dungeons as well.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
thats one of THE things that made me think "WTF?" when I played EQ2..
Well,it was near the top on a very long list anyway.
I too am curious what classes we'll have to choice from and how they work.. I am hoping they will be very much alike the original.. I want to see hybrid classes, and support ones as well.. I want to see the art of CC and pulling.. And I'm hoping for multiples forms of kiting.. as well as the traditional hack and slash with heals.. However, if we end up seeing homogenized classes like we see in WoW, Rift and GW2.. I'll pass and not look back.. I want a buffet of classes and roles to choice from.. I wonder if the world will be like the old one.. I hope so, I miss trains
along with many other surprises..
If combat is more twitch, most everyone will just leave or not try it.. I see nothing wrong with the old traditional targeting.. No need to invent the wheel..
Well you can postulate all you want, but the FACT is that every sandbox ever made is skill based and does not have classes in the classic sense, hence my hesitation to even consider a game with a rigid class structure as a sandbox.
We don't know the details yet, so Smedley might surprise us and come up with something that fits a sandbox definition. Take SWG for an example, it had classes, but your class was determined by the skills you chose. If you got tired of those skills you could detrain some and train others and actually change your class, that is what a sandbox is all about freedom to choose. What NGE did was remove that choice, you had to pick a class and were locked into that choice.
Seconded. What I like in combat is strategy and tactics, not a mad race to see how quickly I can click my mouse and mash my keyboard.
Every time I see people reference "action based combat" as an evolutionary step, I just shake my head. It actually dumbs down the gameplay for more cerebral players.
You know that EQNext is going to be taking some of the good elements from other games and incorporating them with their new concepts. I hope they don't make the same mistake about combat that a lot of players have made.
The original Everquest had a lot of sandbox elements, especially when compared to recent Themepark releases. The players, for instance determined where the trading zone would be on each server. Star Wars Galaxies had more sandbox elements and classes. Shadowbane, an early sandbox game had classes. Horizons (Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted) had classes, though the player could choose to multi-class, and had non-instanced housing. The box that you're stuck in, and I think a lot of developers made the same mistake is that Ultima Online was largely a sandbox game, and it had a classless system, so the two are co-dependent. A skill, or multi-choice player development system is a sandbox element, but it doesn't mean that your game as whole is sandbox game. The Secret World is not a sandbox game, despite its player development. Likewise, using classes doesn't preclude your game from being largely a sandbox.
Can you drive the economy? Can you make player quests for other players and for yourself? Can you build and destroy structures? Can you invent recipes and craft new and unique items? Can you create your own structure to your player organizations? Can you create your own faction and set conditions for other players to advance or alienate it? If the answers to all those questions is yes, the game is a sandbox, regardless of how the character development and progression is set up.
All that being said, I hope that they do allow some player choice in their character development. The EQ model of "choose a class, level it up, and get the best gear you can" is tired to me. I want to make a warrior, but I want to make him an avoidance tank, rather than a hit-mitigation tank, or a wizard who focuses on buffs and fire, over one who focuses on de-buffing and ice damage.
Themepark combat is not more "cerebral" than action based combat. Any knowledge of skills/spells etc that need to be understood will be learnt by anyone over say 100 IQ if they care enough to become good at the game. They are different and they will appeal to different types of players.
The simple fact is that traditional themepark combat was introduced as a copy of what was being done on RPG board games prior to video games. I am no programmer but I imagine that it is also simpler to program and was perhaps the only option on the systems of 20 years ago. Now that technology has caught up and developers can produce better and better action systems it is natural those systems are becoming more common. It has nothing to do with dumbing things down. People like having more action and involvement.
I am all about this! Exploring was what I loved so much about Vanguard. Every time I hear "biggest sandbox ever", I cant wait to see what that looks like. Vanguard was HUGE and there was definitely risk involved with exploring (save for the most remote places not populated), so bigger than that world would be amazing!!!!
_________________________________
Vic - "Androzzi here"
John - "Vic, your case just busted wide open."
Vic - "So close it for me!"
John - "Looks like your going to have to close it yourself, SHITTY!!!!"
Lot's of wrong here. "Themepark combat" - That's a new term you just made up, but there's no such thing, as far as I am aware as "sandbox combat". "action based" (and let's be honest here, that's just click targeting with a dodge mechanic) and tab based combat. A sandbox game can have either, but neither lends itself to the term "sandbox combat".
There have been fighting games (action based) , since long before the internet had a wide base of player usage and gaming development, ever hear of a game called "Street Fighter". It has nothing to do with programming. Now that there are fewer internet latency issues than there were 20 years ago, dodging mechanics can be used. That doesn't mean, however, that it's better. That's like saying God of War is superior to Civilization, because it has action based combat. Because you like it, it doesn't make you stupid, but the combat takes less higher level thinking, it's a necessity.
If you followed the game at all you would know why we have no info, and you would know that they could have shown the game already, but wanted to wait for SOE Live.
Ever since I read about huge swaths of the Ultima Online servers being crowded with abandoned player made castles I've always like the idea of "castle degradation", which going back to my old D&D roots is what a lot of the dungeons were. Say, a player or organization makes a castle, but stops maintaining it. Now, instead of it just disapearing or worse, remaining barren in pristine condition indefinitely, imagine it slowly falling into disrepair and a NPC creatures (beasts or a gang of bandits, Undead legions, etc) moving in. Now the first players, even though they have moved on, have made content for the players that follow in their footsteps.
Getting back to your comment, how cool would it be if that could happen anywhere in a vast gaming world, so that even if you come back to a same spot you played in 2 years ago, it could be totally different? Now a little player guided quest-hub of a village has become the loosely fortified base of an orc tribe, including a boss that drops nice loot.
It doesn't launch in a couple of weeks. It's unveiled to the public in a couple of weeks. Going by the last thing I heard there is supposed to be a "playable version in people's hands" by end of 2013.
Thirded...I nigh despise action combat. I want to play an MMO and make strategic and tactical decisions...not mash buttons like I'm playing an arcade game.
EQN has an overblown hype rating. Nothing has been set into stone yet. All we hear is maybe or
we might. Personally, i think SoE is just blowing smoke
I guess it depends on your definition of launch. But yes the curtains come down and we get to see inside the black box in a couple of weeks. We may even get some information about beta(s), planned release dates and pre-orders.
It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that some of those dates may be in early August. I say again possible but extremely unlikely. So stand by for the information, but do not have your credit card in your hand just yet.
I am betting lots of things have been "set in stone" at this point. It is just that no one is talking about them until SOE Live.
I always find the argument that target-lock systems are "so yesteryear" completely specious. In fact it is the twitchy, actiony combat systems that are by far the oldest. Arcade games, to console games, to a slow creep into PC MMO's. They are simply a gimick to bring convert long term console players into MMO players by giving them something familiar to hang onto. Not innovation simply a marketing ploy to increase sales.
If that is the case (and I tend to agree with you if they're really gunning for a 2013 launch), I hope they've got some good internal testers.